And we know that our old being has been put to death with Christ on his cross, in order that the power of the sinful self might be destroyed, so that we should no longer be the slaves of sin.
Our old being, not our old ape, or our old single cell self, Our old being. Which totally invalidates your claim "If you are a Christian, and you believe in evolution, you instantly invalidate the concept of original sin, thus making Jesus' crucifixion a meaningless slaughter.".
I suggest if you are going to attempt to extract idea's from the Bible you should read it in context.
Can you demonstrate that it's knowledge, and not just another opinion? Otherwise I have no reason to give it any more regard
Yes, but really there is no point to doing so since it is *Biblical* knowledge you won't pay it any regard anyway.
I'm certainly not interested in inviting a disparaging remark intent on demonstrating your intellectual superiority.
If religion has any use, it should give us answers about reality. It is religion's job.
What? Religion's job is to help people live life and find comfort in a world that often pushes people to despair. Religion's job is to pick up the alcoholic in the street whose spirit is totally broken. Religion's job is to shelter people who have no where else to turn. *THAT* is Religion's job. Can science describe anything more than the chemistry of despair or love or hate or fear. Can science describe the morality of not stealing or killing or why people become friends or why law is important to society. That's like using science to describe why you love your wife or children when the answer is you just do.
Wisdom is to Religion as Knowledge is to Science. Neither excludes the other. Your statement is like saying a man is going to be comforted by the description of a molecule while he is weeping for the loss of his family in a car accident. *THAT* is the reality that religion is concerned with.
Also, religion is not a body of knowledge. Religion is a body of philosophy.
I agree, Religion is a body of philosophy but if you want to make claims, as you have, about Christian philosophies then Biblical knowledge i.e a body knowledge of the Bible, is essential.
Nonsense. People with faith believe in the face of a lack of evidence or in the face of evidence to the contrary.
I haven't seen *any* evidence to prove or disprove the existence of God so what makes someone's belief in God any less valid than your doubt? So you are certain that your doubt's are right? Are you absolutely certain that God does not exist?
They're certain that their beliefs are right.
Well I'm certain that's why it's called faith in God and not doubt in God. I mean DUUUUUUUUUHHHH.
Nice circumvention of my entire point. I said: "If you can somehow demonstrate that you don't need a holy book to "know" anything about a deity, I'd be interested." Again, please explain how you can know something about a deity without evidence that it actually exists.
Sure. I think it's science's job to describe all of the wonder of God's creations and document them in the utmost detail. I think science should describe evolution and understand the miracle of how we rose from a single cell being to an ape to a sentient human looking at the stars. Maybe science, as a tool, will grow in sophistication and fill the gaps in our knowledge of the actual events over hundreds of millions of years to makes God's creation even more amazing. Know the Universe, know God, hey, it may even be bigger and smaller than that. As a project though, I think it will ta
It depends not just on what your legal rights are, but how those rights are interpreted.
Not only do they use the FLIR cameras here but they also use sniffer dogs on people in public places to sniff out drugs. Of course Aussies are also fairly mischievous and some young fella's clued onto the idea of filling a water pistol with bong water and spraying people's trouser legs. People like priests, politicians, executives, anyone who *didn't* look like they would possess drugs. Pretty soon public outrage dealt with that bright idea.
Telecommunication intercept laws here were revised so enforcement agencies no longer required a warrant to tap people's phone calls. Email, sms, voice mail are all valid targets. Fucked really, be careful what you say at all times.
Good think I didn't turn up the dickishnes to 11 then.:)
That guy is a dick!
What part of Australia?
NSW about 90 mins north of Sydney. I live about 5 mins walk from the beach. In my backyard I have heaps of native animals and they are all loony. 5 species of parrots, the usual magpies, native mynas and kurrawongs constantly battling each other, stuuupid bush turkeys try to eat everything, some massive big birds that are a couple and pig out on the fruit in my yard and then do big purple shits on my neighbours clothes while they are on the line. And of course the King Kookaburras sitting there looking around at all the other birds (and even me) with that 'don't fuck with me - I'll snap you and it will hurt' and it does - fucking little shits will score a chop or a snag of the barbie given half a chance if there are no snakes or lizards around to chew on. Occasionally I see a Sea eagle flying over and that's the day shift.
At night the stoopid possums fight any cats that happen to go out side which then freaks out all the dogs so a cacophony of crazy animals ensues. Often the possums will fall out of the trees - which is pretty dumb for an animal that *lives in the trees*. Flying foxes pig out on the fruit in my yard - and then shit on my neighbours clothes *again* and of course the big owls (about a foot tall sitting) that sit on the washing line not making a noise until you are about a metre away from them - scares the crap out of me - sharp beaks, I've had to rescue a few of them because they eat poisoned rats (which they shit all over *my* car).
you have crappy...... laws
I've lobbied the government about some of our more severe laws for detainment, specifically anty - tewworwism laws I have had confrontations with them but if you don't act like a dick they just ignore you. I was called into a station once because someone made a false statement against me. My legal advisor suggested I just co-operate which I did - I haven't heard back. I was actually in a similar situation to the guy in this article, but when I had finished berating the cops about my treatment and the insult of them being called to take care of me, they were on my side.
Your post has made me more inclined to find out about how to exert my rights though. I wish Australia had a bill of rights like the states does. We are a 1st world country for fuck sake, it's pretty annoying that we have laws that some sleazy south American dictatorships would be proud of. I recently attended a government forum constructed to achieve that end so hopefully we will have them in the future. I'm just glad we don't have the death penalty.
Solution is obvious: drink all the cola you want, just make sure to supplement with banana ice cream. Added advantage of calcium and magnesium in the ice cream (also necessary for proper muscle function).
Funny and insightful, calcium and magnesium help the uptake of potassium too. So with 7-10 litres of coke all you need is one full cow, a bunch of bananas and half of a VW engine block shredded in a blender for a balanced diet, mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
The only part where he failed at this was in talking to the cops at all.
I'm evolved enough to concede that you are right, it was an excellent educational piece. Thanks
Blaming the victim again - stay classy Kaos.
Now I understand the scope of rights American citizens enjoy I see that, unintentionally, this is what I was doing. We should all understand how to utilise our rights under the law and you are right to correct the misconceptions. You are very lucky, I wish we had the same rights in Australia.
And thus, since what matters is what's "true to me", it is not an objective source of knowledge or truth.
Yet you to quote the Bible. I think you are missing the point which occurs when people take a line here or there from the bible, you have to read romans in context. the point is (of Adam) at romans 6.6:
And we know that our old being has been put to death with Christ on his cross, in order that the power of the sinful self might be destroyed, so that we should no longer be the slaves of sin.
Like this one? "Why? The Catholic church seems to be ok with evolution. It's only fairly recently that this has started to change." Somehow this is more valid to you, because it comes from a church.
Conveniently you have sidestepped the question, Why if "you believe in evolution, you instantly invalidate the concept of original sin, thus making Jesus' crucifixion a meaningless slaughter."?
But to answer *your* question I stated the churches opinion because they have some knowledge in what "invalidate(s) the concept of original sin". I couldn't remember where it was I read in the bible that ideas like I.D were taking away from God's glory, i.e. the detail of God's creation described through science. That's how I formed that opinion, and thus why I thought the church held that opinion. Why should *your* opinion on this matter carry more weight than the Catholic Church.
You are making a claim that should be based on a religious premise to justify that statement. What is it? How did you form that opinion? Why are they not compatible?
How does a belief in god help them understand the way the world works? It doesn't provide any answers,
Why should it provide either, that's science's job. You attempt to invalidate that people who maintain a faith in God can't be concerned that science's place in society is being undermined. Science and Religion and two separate bodies of knowledge and neither are mutually exclusive.
I don't need to disprove it. If it does not manifest in any sense in our reality, I can simply assume it doesn't exist. That which is transcendent and non-manifesting is identical to that which is nonexistent.
Faith *and* doubt are the opposite of certainty.
It's not a matter of dogma. As someone who doesn't believe in god, the concept of blasphemy is meaningless to me. It's silly to debate over the theological implications of a hypothesis such as ID. That only has meaning for you.
Rubbish. It has meaning for the people that are lobbying politicians to have science education in our schools dismantled. I, personally, as someone who *has* a faith in God, do not want to see I.D promoted at the expense of science. Obviously the deception spreads far and wide, but you go on, and make the fundamentalists proud. It's not silly to them, the results won't be silly to you either.
This is a tenet of the Christian religion, written in the holy book of the Christian religion by human beings.
Well I'd simply refer you to the book of Ezekiel and maybe you will understand the point of the cake he is forced to eat in 4.
If you can somehow demonstrate that you don't need a holy book to "know" anything about a deity, I'd be interested.
Your reasoning is flawed, letters to the churches are written in Revelation 2-3. The Bible isn't a religion, it is what the "Christian" religions are based on.
I don't need to be working for a nonexistent being to defend reality.
What incredibly arrogant presumptions you have made.
If you are a Christian, and you believe in evolution, you instantly invalidate the concept of original sin, thus making Jesus' crucifixion a meaningless slaughter.
Why? The Catholic church seems to be ok with evolution. It's only fairly recently that this has started to change. All you have done is stated an opinion.
What about people who believe in god, think Intelligent Design is blasphemous and that science is the only way to describe god's works? That extra evidence arises that describes mankind's journey to what we are now just adds to the wonder of creation.
I think the thing that is forgotten in this whole debate is not being able to prove god exists is the point of faith. There is never proof, only opinions, it's your choice. Besides how would you prove or disprove a being who can shape the laws of nature, time and space if that being doesn't want any proof to exist?
Believe it or not there are many people who maintain a faith in god that see 'Intelligent Design' as a crock of shit that promotes ignorance. Yet while fundamental religionists evolve their tactics and push deeper into attacking science, those who try to defend science persist with the same meaningless static argument to people who are only convinced by faith based arguments. Intelligent Design is blasphemous, if you want to defend science's place in society, say that to the lobbying fundamentalist who are deceived into doing satan's work to dismantle sciences place. The argument is handed to the atheists on a plate, but they are too dogmatic with *their* beliefs to see it.
Do atheists realise many see Religion and God as separate things. Religion was created by man and is flawed with the original sin you speak of. The enduring irony is that many moderate people of faith see atheists as the ones doing god's work right now.
In my early thirties I started snoring a lot, and very heavily.
Same here, although I was only being woken up 25 times a night, I started exercising (after having not for a few years) and it seemed to get better. However one of my siblings is awoken by sleep apnoea 300 times a night. After reading this it's little wonder why he is overweight and depressed.
No, it's about vendors Trusting that your machine is who it says it is. It has nothing to do about control, except over their own content.
FUD.
I have a real problem with scope creep of that statement. So if I have a web cam should the TPM detect if there is more than one viewer and say the content is licenced for one viewer? There are plenty of other methods that vendors can use to track "their content", more accurately you mean 'the content they licensed to me'. So what if I want to view 'the content I licensed' on someone else's machine?
That flawed model of trust does not take into account 'I am who I say I am' because digital identities have not been validated under the law. I am not my machine, it did not licence the content, I did.
Since content providers have not embraced a digital model for distribution, TPM is like using a stick of dynamite where a sledge hammer will do. I bet the RIAA/MPAA will applaud it's widespread deployment, they have demonstrated they will use *any* technology to pursue their agenda.
So, do you have any actual, real-world example of TPM being used that way? Or just spreading the old recycled FUD around?
That's like saying a firearm won't be used for armed robbery. The fact is the functionality exists and you don't know how it will be used. It can only be called FUD after it hasn't been used once wide spread deployment is complete.
Well drag me to hell...what does an island nation, sitting well below the equator, need with a space program anyhow.
Isn't Australia one of the two places in the world where an initial space elevator can be sited? For that reason alone it would be good to explore at least, the possibilities.
quarter hog that we'd gotten as a present, and no one noticed for about 6 months. It was horrible. Neighbors from down the block were coming outside to find the cause of the stench.
I unfortunately had a similar experience. My parent went overseas for a month and their freezer (containing meat) broke down while they were away. Fortunately for them I came to check on the house a week before they arrived. Before I opened the freezer, it was bad, I couldn't let my parents encounter it after a London to Sydney flight so I took care of it.
It wasn't just the smell that was bad, it was the way my throat and eyes stung. Fortunately a friend helped me. We did it by each wrapping wet towels around our mouth and nose, we ran in the house, opened a window and ran out, yes we actually ran. Once all the windows were open we ran in the house grabbed a bag of meat (rubber gloves) and ran out of the house and put it in the bin, we vomited several times.
No attempt was made to clean the fridge. once it was relieved of the weight we sealed it up, let the house air and moved it out of the house. After lecturing my parent about not ever *ever* leaving a freezer with meat in it when going overseas they just bought a new fridge.
There is no way any person can fight that badness, except Chuck Norris.
My first point is that you shouldn't lie to do something that you are perfectly allowed to do. You don't have to, you don't want to be that kind of person and you don't want to contribute to create a society where lying is better than not.
I don't know if he *is* allowed to do that on private property. IANAL, it maybe a form of trespass. He admitted he was banned by the property owner.
My second point is that by lying you are putting yourself in a position of wrongdoing. Now that you are lying, there is a case to be made that you are acting in bad faith. Your original intention when you were taking the pictures will then rightfully be questioned.
Bullshit. He was dishonest by concealing his intentions, he made the case of acting in bad faith. If he wasn't that badly convinced he needed the pictures to prove his point then why didn't he just say I've never really seen the inside of one of these before, which is why I took the picture, hope you don't mind. He could have been reasonable or even civil and from his own account, he wasn't.
So if some cops flagrantly violate your civil rights and you get the least bit agitated, "you brought it on yourself?" What a gigantic crock of shit.
I think you are forgetting that the police have a certain amount of authority that is within the charter of their duty to exercise. As long as they remain professional about it and don't act like thugs, it's ok.
Our subject kept testing the authority of the rent-a-cop and then went on to test the authority of the cops. No one denied him his right to take a picture for, as we see, he still has it. However rent-a-cop and the cops also had a right to exercise their authority, and they did. In any circumstances it is not wise to test the authority of the police unless you have an excellent grasp of your rights under the law.
I don't condone authority figures acting in an unprofessional manner but this guy looks like things got out of control for him and now he is complaining to everyone on the internet about it. I don't think people's reactions would be much different if someone unknown walked up and took photo's of their children in a child care centre, or their property without knowing why they weren't consulted, it's not as if they are famous or there is an obvious reason why the photo's are being taken.
The other thing is he was on *private* property, not public property it may not be suspicious, but it *looks* suspicious, it looks like it can be mis-used and all I'm saying is this guy should have seen that and defused the situation, instead it looks like he provoked a confrontation.
calls me "buddy" I assume he's trying to scam me somehow.
Well, I'd presume you insert your own local equivalent term appropriately rather than citing my example as a template for what to say. I would have said 'mate' but I don't know if that translates to a larger audience.
I think it's not very nice to say he 'brought it upon himself'. He didn't do anything wrong.
I agree, but there is plenty of scope within the normal processing of a police persons day where you don't do anything wrong but are subjected to a hassle. If he had any brains he could have headed it of when the police were called. If he was making a statement about something or testing legal limits perhaps it might have been appropriate. The simple fact here is this guy got out of his depth *fast* by being confrontational and making the 'horthorita's' suspicious. Nice or not, he brought it upon himself by not handling it better. This story should serve as a 'here's what you don't do if you want some pictures of an ATM'.
but then we wouldn't have this nice story about abuse of authority.
Well there are abuses of authority everywhere, and they are wrong, but that doesn't stop the police from riling you up so you loose your cool. This guy lost his cool with the police and they said 'probable/possible/I don't like this guy cause'. More than likely the cops will keep an eye on him now and view him with some suspicion.
We need to stand up more against this shit while it's doable,...If we don't, things might come to a point where we can't stand up anymore because we're just taken outside and shot.
I agree, but frankly a line in a shop is not the appropriate place to make a statement about an abuse of authority. Read proposed legislative bills that take away freedoms then either protest them or suggest changes to the language that will become law so that there is scope to fight them. I have, play the game and politicians will listen and even seek your advice. Be confrontational and aggressive and they will think you are an idiot.
Besides, even if it is a abuse of authority, I don't know if I would like photo's taken of me while I was handling large sums of money. he said the guard said:
Him
When you're done over here, come talk to me.
How do we know the guard wasn't going to say "yeah buddy, I don't mind if you take a photograph as long as you don't post it on the internet, I don't want people to recognise me", It's feasible that the guard is afraid of being targeted for armed robbery. All this guy has achieved is that when this inevitably gets reported to his boss is that the organisation will clamp down on anyone taking pictures anywhere near their guards, if anything this guys actions has reduced our freedom a little because it will end up in the way an *organisation* handles these events, not a one to one encounter. There is plenty of scope with *how* the law is enforced that can reduce you freedom without actually changing the law.
This story could have as easily been titled 'How I reduced your freedom today by losing my cool'
He should have softened them up first with a base level social engineering attack something like:
Hey Buddy, I've just been learning how to service these, mind if I take a couple of snaps of this one to show my teacher, I've never seen this model before.
or
My boy is interested in the inside of these mind if I take a piccy so he can have a look?
The combinations of bullshit are endless but you get the point. Instead of being confrontational he could of said, Talk to you later? sure buddy. did his business forget it and walk out. If confronted again he could have diffused the situation, or he could have said Talk to you later? I'm not going anywhere in *this* line, what's up? if the security guard revealed he was upset about the pictures, he should of apologised profusely, said he would delete the pictures immediately, fiddle with the phone and not delete them, then look at the guard and say - all done - sorry about that.
It's obvious these guys motivation is 'wespect my horthorita' so he should have played on it and not looked like a threat, the guard might have just been interested in having a look at his iphone as much as he was interested in the inside of an atm. Instead the subject reinforced the marks insecurities by being confrontational instead of comforting them. Frankly whilst our subject probably didn't deserve the treatment he also brought it upon himself.
Slashdot Mirror
Adobe hasn't read 'How to win friends and Influence people'
Which I answered there. Romans 6.6 :
And we know that our old being has been put to death with Christ on his cross, in order that the power of the sinful self might be destroyed, so that we should no longer be the slaves of sin.
Our old being, not our old ape, or our old single cell self, Our old being. Which totally invalidates your claim "If you are a Christian, and you believe in evolution, you instantly invalidate the concept of original sin, thus making Jesus' crucifixion a meaningless slaughter.".
I suggest if you are going to attempt to extract idea's from the Bible you should read it in context.
Yes, but really there is no point to doing so since it is *Biblical* knowledge you won't pay it any regard anyway. I'm certainly not interested in inviting a disparaging remark intent on demonstrating your intellectual superiority.
What? Religion's job is to help people live life and find comfort in a world that often pushes people to despair. Religion's job is to pick up the alcoholic in the street whose spirit is totally broken. Religion's job is to shelter people who have no where else to turn. *THAT* is Religion's job. Can science describe anything more than the chemistry of despair or love or hate or fear. Can science describe the morality of not stealing or killing or why people become friends or why law is important to society. That's like using science to describe why you love your wife or children when the answer is you just do.
Wisdom is to Religion as Knowledge is to Science. Neither excludes the other. Your statement is like saying a man is going to be comforted by the description of a molecule while he is weeping for the loss of his family in a car accident. *THAT* is the reality that religion is concerned with.
I agree, Religion is a body of philosophy but if you want to make claims, as you have, about Christian philosophies then Biblical knowledge i.e a body knowledge of the Bible, is essential.
I haven't seen *any* evidence to prove or disprove the existence of God so what makes someone's belief in God any less valid than your doubt? So you are certain that your doubt's are right? Are you absolutely certain that God does not exist?
Well I'm certain that's why it's called faith in God and not doubt in God. I mean DUUUUUUUUUHHHH.
Sure. I think it's science's job to describe all of the wonder of God's creations and document them in the utmost detail. I think science should describe evolution and understand the miracle of how we rose from a single cell being to an ape to a sentient human looking at the stars. Maybe science, as a tool, will grow in sophistication and fill the gaps in our knowledge of the actual events over hundreds of millions of years to makes God's creation even more amazing. Know the Universe, know God, hey, it may even be bigger and smaller than that. As a project though, I think it will ta
Not only do they use the FLIR cameras here but they also use sniffer dogs on people in public places to sniff out drugs. Of course Aussies are also fairly mischievous and some young fella's clued onto the idea of filling a water pistol with bong water and spraying people's trouser legs. People like priests, politicians, executives, anyone who *didn't* look like they would possess drugs. Pretty soon public outrage dealt with that bright idea.
Telecommunication intercept laws here were revised so enforcement agencies no longer required a warrant to tap people's phone calls. Email, sms, voice mail are all valid targets. Fucked really, be careful what you say at all times.
That guy is a dick!
NSW about 90 mins north of Sydney. I live about 5 mins walk from the beach. In my backyard I have heaps of native animals and they are all loony. 5 species of parrots, the usual magpies, native mynas and kurrawongs constantly battling each other, stuuupid bush turkeys try to eat everything, some massive big birds that are a couple and pig out on the fruit in my yard and then do big purple shits on my neighbours clothes while they are on the line. And of course the King Kookaburras sitting there looking around at all the other birds (and even me) with that 'don't fuck with me - I'll snap you and it will hurt' and it does - fucking little shits will score a chop or a snag of the barbie given half a chance if there are no snakes or lizards around to chew on. Occasionally I see a Sea eagle flying over and that's the day shift.
At night the stoopid possums fight any cats that happen to go out side which then freaks out all the dogs so a cacophony of crazy animals ensues. Often the possums will fall out of the trees - which is pretty dumb for an animal that *lives in the trees*. Flying foxes pig out on the fruit in my yard - and then shit on my neighbours clothes *again* and of course the big owls (about a foot tall sitting) that sit on the washing line not making a noise until you are about a metre away from them - scares the crap out of me - sharp beaks, I've had to rescue a few of them because they eat poisoned rats (which they shit all over *my* car).
I've lobbied the government about some of our more severe laws for detainment, specifically anty - tewworwism laws I have had confrontations with them but if you don't act like a dick they just ignore you. I was called into a station once because someone made a false statement against me. My legal advisor suggested I just co-operate which I did - I haven't heard back. I was actually in a similar situation to the guy in this article, but when I had finished berating the cops about my treatment and the insult of them being called to take care of me, they were on my side.
Your post has made me more inclined to find out about how to exert my rights though. I wish Australia had a bill of rights like the states does. We are a 1st world country for fuck sake, it's pretty annoying that we have laws that some sleazy south American dictatorships would be proud of. I recently attended a government forum constructed to achieve that end so hopefully we will have them in the future. I'm just glad we don't have the death penalty.
It would be the least expensive way to do it.
Funny and insightful, calcium and magnesium help the uptake of potassium too. So with 7-10 litres of coke all you need is one full cow, a bunch of bananas and half of a VW engine block shredded in a blender for a balanced diet, mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
I'm evolved enough to concede that you are right, it was an excellent educational piece. Thanks
Now I understand the scope of rights American citizens enjoy I see that, unintentionally, this is what I was doing. We should all understand how to utilise our rights under the law and you are right to correct the misconceptions. You are very lucky, I wish we had the same rights in Australia.
Yet you to quote the Bible. I think you are missing the point which occurs when people take a line here or there from the bible, you have to read romans in context. the point is (of Adam) at romans 6.6:
And we know that our old being has been put to death with Christ on his cross, in order that the power of the sinful self might be destroyed, so that we should no longer be the slaves of sin.
Conveniently you have sidestepped the question, Why if "you believe in evolution, you instantly invalidate the concept of original sin, thus making Jesus' crucifixion a meaningless slaughter."?
But to answer *your* question I stated the churches opinion because they have some knowledge in what "invalidate(s) the concept of original sin". I couldn't remember where it was I read in the bible that ideas like I.D were taking away from God's glory, i.e. the detail of God's creation described through science. That's how I formed that opinion, and thus why I thought the church held that opinion. Why should *your* opinion on this matter carry more weight than the Catholic Church.
You are making a claim that should be based on a religious premise to justify that statement. What is it? How did you form that opinion? Why are they not compatible?
Why should it provide either, that's science's job. You attempt to invalidate that people who maintain a faith in God can't be concerned that science's place in society is being undermined. Science and Religion and two separate bodies of knowledge and neither are mutually exclusive.
Faith *and* doubt are the opposite of certainty.
Rubbish. It has meaning for the people that are lobbying politicians to have science education in our schools dismantled. I, personally, as someone who *has* a faith in God, do not want to see I.D promoted at the expense of science. Obviously the deception spreads far and wide, but you go on, and make the fundamentalists proud. It's not silly to them, the results won't be silly to you either.
Well I'd simply refer you to the book of Ezekiel and maybe you will understand the point of the cake he is forced to eat in 4.
Your reasoning is flawed, letters to the churches are written in Revelation 2-3. The Bible isn't a religion, it is what the "Christian" religions are based on.
What incredibly arrogant presumptions you have made.
Why? The Catholic church seems to be ok with evolution. It's only fairly recently that this has started to change. All you have done is stated an opinion.
What about people who believe in god, think Intelligent Design is blasphemous and that science is the only way to describe god's works? That extra evidence arises that describes mankind's journey to what we are now just adds to the wonder of creation. I think the thing that is forgotten in this whole debate is not being able to prove god exists is the point of faith. There is never proof, only opinions, it's your choice. Besides how would you prove or disprove a being who can shape the laws of nature, time and space if that being doesn't want any proof to exist?
Believe it or not there are many people who maintain a faith in god that see 'Intelligent Design' as a crock of shit that promotes ignorance. Yet while fundamental religionists evolve their tactics and push deeper into attacking science, those who try to defend science persist with the same meaningless static argument to people who are only convinced by faith based arguments. Intelligent Design is blasphemous, if you want to defend science's place in society, say that to the lobbying fundamentalist who are deceived into doing satan's work to dismantle sciences place. The argument is handed to the atheists on a plate, but they are too dogmatic with *their* beliefs to see it.
Do atheists realise many see Religion and God as separate things. Religion was created by man and is flawed with the original sin you speak of. The enduring irony is that many moderate people of faith see atheists as the ones doing god's work right now.
Same here, although I was only being woken up 25 times a night, I started exercising (after having not for a few years) and it seemed to get better. However one of my siblings is awoken by sleep apnoea 300 times a night. After reading this it's little wonder why he is overweight and depressed.
Ahhhh those Entertainment Industry CEO's are kooky kooky guys!!!
I have a real problem with scope creep of that statement. So if I have a web cam should the TPM detect if there is more than one viewer and say the content is licenced for one viewer? There are plenty of other methods that vendors can use to track "their content", more accurately you mean 'the content they licensed to me'. So what if I want to view 'the content I licensed' on someone else's machine?
That flawed model of trust does not take into account 'I am who I say I am' because digital identities have not been validated under the law. I am not my machine, it did not licence the content, I did. Since content providers have not embraced a digital model for distribution, TPM is like using a stick of dynamite where a sledge hammer will do. I bet the RIAA/MPAA will applaud it's widespread deployment, they have demonstrated they will use *any* technology to pursue their agenda.
That's like saying a firearm won't be used for armed robbery. The fact is the functionality exists and you don't know how it will be used. It can only be called FUD after it hasn't been used once wide spread deployment is complete.
Power is only used once fully deployed.
Because it's about vendors trusting they have control of *your* machine, not about you *trusting* control of your machine.
Isn't Australia one of the two places in the world where an initial space elevator can be sited? For that reason alone it would be good to explore at least, the possibilities.
Ummmm, was it something I said?
Just for a second I thought you were talking about Japanese cartoons. I *obviously* know nothing about chemistry.
I unfortunately had a similar experience. My parent went overseas for a month and their freezer (containing meat) broke down while they were away. Fortunately for them I came to check on the house a week before they arrived. Before I opened the freezer, it was bad, I couldn't let my parents encounter it after a London to Sydney flight so I took care of it.
It wasn't just the smell that was bad, it was the way my throat and eyes stung. Fortunately a friend helped me. We did it by each wrapping wet towels around our mouth and nose, we ran in the house, opened a window and ran out, yes we actually ran. Once all the windows were open we ran in the house grabbed a bag of meat (rubber gloves) and ran out of the house and put it in the bin, we vomited several times.
No attempt was made to clean the fridge. once it was relieved of the weight we sealed it up, let the house air and moved it out of the house. After lecturing my parent about not ever *ever* leaving a freezer with meat in it when going overseas they just bought a new fridge.
There is no way any person can fight that badness, except Chuck Norris.
I don't know if he *is* allowed to do that on private property. IANAL, it maybe a form of trespass. He admitted he was banned by the property owner.
Bullshit. He was dishonest by concealing his intentions, he made the case of acting in bad faith. If he wasn't that badly convinced he needed the pictures to prove his point then why didn't he just say I've never really seen the inside of one of these before, which is why I took the picture, hope you don't mind. He could have been reasonable or even civil and from his own account, he wasn't.
I think you are forgetting that the police have a certain amount of authority that is within the charter of their duty to exercise. As long as they remain professional about it and don't act like thugs, it's ok.
Our subject kept testing the authority of the rent-a-cop and then went on to test the authority of the cops. No one denied him his right to take a picture for, as we see, he still has it. However rent-a-cop and the cops also had a right to exercise their authority, and they did. In any circumstances it is not wise to test the authority of the police unless you have an excellent grasp of your rights under the law.
I don't condone authority figures acting in an unprofessional manner but this guy looks like things got out of control for him and now he is complaining to everyone on the internet about it. I don't think people's reactions would be much different if someone unknown walked up and took photo's of their children in a child care centre, or their property without knowing why they weren't consulted, it's not as if they are famous or there is an obvious reason why the photo's are being taken.
The other thing is he was on *private* property, not public property it may not be suspicious, but it *looks* suspicious, it looks like it can be mis-used and all I'm saying is this guy should have seen that and defused the situation, instead it looks like he provoked a confrontation.
Well, I'd presume you insert your own local equivalent term appropriately rather than citing my example as a template for what to say. I would have said 'mate' but I don't know if that translates to a larger audience.
I agree, but there is plenty of scope within the normal processing of a police persons day where you don't do anything wrong but are subjected to a hassle. If he had any brains he could have headed it of when the police were called. If he was making a statement about something or testing legal limits perhaps it might have been appropriate. The simple fact here is this guy got out of his depth *fast* by being confrontational and making the 'horthorita's' suspicious. Nice or not, he brought it upon himself by not handling it better. This story should serve as a 'here's what you don't do if you want some pictures of an ATM'.
Well there are abuses of authority everywhere, and they are wrong, but that doesn't stop the police from riling you up so you loose your cool. This guy lost his cool with the police and they said 'probable/possible/I don't like this guy cause'. More than likely the cops will keep an eye on him now and view him with some suspicion.
I agree, but frankly a line in a shop is not the appropriate place to make a statement about an abuse of authority. Read proposed legislative bills that take away freedoms then either protest them or suggest changes to the language that will become law so that there is scope to fight them. I have, play the game and politicians will listen and even seek your advice. Be confrontational and aggressive and they will think you are an idiot.
Besides, even if it is a abuse of authority, I don't know if I would like photo's taken of me while I was handling large sums of money. he said the guard said: Him When you're done over here, come talk to me. How do we know the guard wasn't going to say "yeah buddy, I don't mind if you take a photograph as long as you don't post it on the internet, I don't want people to recognise me", It's feasible that the guard is afraid of being targeted for armed robbery. All this guy has achieved is that when this inevitably gets reported to his boss is that the organisation will clamp down on anyone taking pictures anywhere near their guards, if anything this guys actions has reduced our freedom a little because it will end up in the way an *organisation* handles these events, not a one to one encounter. There is plenty of scope with *how* the law is enforced that can reduce you freedom without actually changing the law.
This story could have as easily been titled 'How I reduced your freedom today by losing my cool'
sure thing, Pal.
He should have softened them up first with a base level social engineering attack something like:
Hey Buddy, I've just been learning how to service these, mind if I take a couple of snaps of this one to show my teacher, I've never seen this model before.
or
My boy is interested in the inside of these mind if I take a piccy so he can have a look?
The combinations of bullshit are endless but you get the point. Instead of being confrontational he could of said, Talk to you later? sure buddy. did his business forget it and walk out. If confronted again he could have diffused the situation, or he could have said Talk to you later? I'm not going anywhere in *this* line, what's up? if the security guard revealed he was upset about the pictures, he should of apologised profusely, said he would delete the pictures immediately, fiddle with the phone and not delete them, then look at the guard and say - all done - sorry about that.
It's obvious these guys motivation is 'wespect my horthorita' so he should have played on it and not looked like a threat, the guard might have just been interested in having a look at his iphone as much as he was interested in the inside of an atm. Instead the subject reinforced the marks insecurities by being confrontational instead of comforting them. Frankly whilst our subject probably didn't deserve the treatment he also brought it upon himself.